The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a global climatic anomaly that encompassed a few centuries on either side of AD 1000, when temperatures in many parts of the world were even warmer than they are currently. The degree of warmth and associated changes in precipitation, however, varied from region to region and from time to time; and, therefore, the MWP was manifest differently in different parts of the world. How it behaved in Russia is the subject of this Summary.

In contradiction of another of Mann et al.'s contentions, Krenke and Chernavskaya went on to unequivocally state - on the basis of the results of their comprehensive study of the relevant scientific literature - that “the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age existed globally.”

The fact that the warming that brought the world the Current Warm Period began around 1750 AD, or nearly 100 years before the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, should be evidence enough to argue that the planet's current warmth is the result of nothing more than the most recent and expected upward swing of this natural climatic oscillation.

From approximately AD 1200 to 1410, they concluded that temperatures in the region of their study were “probably higher than today,” providing yet another example of times and places when and where low-CO2 Medieval Warm Period temperatures were likely higher than high-CO2 Current Warm Period temperatures.

In conclusion, and considering the full spectrum of studies included in this Summary, it would appear that a goodly portion of the Medieval Warm Period throughout Russia was somewhat warmer than what has so far been experienced there during the Current Warm Period. And since the MWP held sway when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was something on the order of 285 ppm, as compared to the 400 ppm of today, it would appear that the air's CO2 content has had essentially nothing to do with earth's near-surface air temperature throughout the entire Holocene, when the air's CO2 concentration at times dropped as low as 250 ppm. Other factors have clearly totally dominated.

WSJ.COM 6/28/13: President Obama unveiled his vast new anticarbon-energy agenda this week, which he plans to impose by executive fiat. Crucial to pulling off this exercise is a decision the federal bureaucracy made last month to change the way it accounts for carbon emissions—a decision that received almost no media attention.

In late May the Administration slipped this mickey into a new rule about efficiency standards for microwaves, significantly raising what it calls the "social cost of carbon." Team Obama made no public notice and invited no comment on this change that will further tilt rule-making against products and industries that use carbon energy.

Federal law requires the government to calculate the costs and benefits of its rules and projects. The regulatory agencies are expert at rigging these calculations, but even they haven't been able to hide the enormous costs of President Obama's regulations under traditional economic measurement. The Administration's solution? Simply redefine the economic and social "benefits" of reducing carbon.

And sure enough, in 2010 an interagency working group conjured a new way to goose the benefits of regulation. Every metric ton of carbon that was reduced by regulation would suddenly count for $21 in "social benefits." This figure was derived by guesses about how more carbon in the atmosphere may harm everything from agricultural productivity to human health to flood risks. The government's previous official estimate? $0.

The Administration has now gone further as part of its microwave rule and raised its estimated benefit from carbon reduction to about $36 a metric ton. The Department of Energy explained that this "update" was the result of new assumptions based on "the best available science," which means whatever science the feds decide to favor. The practical effect is to further inflate the supposed benefit of new rules, thereby offsetting the enormous economic costs.

Related Video

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips on how voters are responding to President Obama’s climate change plan.

All of this was neatly illustrated in a 2011 paper by Michael Greenstone, a former White House economist, who helped to dream up the initial 2010 figure. Mr. Greenstone analyzed the Administration's new fuel-efficiency standards and admitted that under traditional economic analysis they were a net loser. They'd cost industry and consumers $350 billion, while providing benefits (less pollution, more energy security and less congestion) of only $277 billion. Yet conjure up another $177 billion in supposed new social benefits from less carbon, and—voila!—the costs of the new rule would be more than offset.

All of this is prelude to the coming regulatory onslaught on carbon energy and electricity production. The social-cost gambit will allow the Administration to claim an enormous economic benefit for any greenhouse gas regulation that reduces carbon—such as new standards on existing coal plants (new plants are already being regulated out of existence), oil refineries or lawn mowers.

This will also help to disguise the net cost of these rules in lost jobs, higher energy prices and less consumer choice. The new social-cost calculation could also be used against projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming they impose too high a "social cost" by assisting the production of carbon energy to justify approval.

Republicans are slowly figuring out what's going on here, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has sent a letter to the EPA, Energy Department and White House budget office demanding the details of its social-cost modeling.

Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the social cost of carbon ought to be as high as $266 a metric ton. If the cost can be whatever some regulator claims, based on pressure from some green outfit or competing energy lobby, the government has the power to put any fossil-fuel industry out of business whenever it feels like it.

All of this is profoundly undemocratic. Congress has never legislated that there are social costs to carbon emissions, much less how to measure them. Mr. Obama couldn't pass his anticarbon agenda through Congress in his first two years even with a Democratic supermajority. He's now trying to impose it by regulation, and to do so he's rigging the rule-making with inventions like the "social cost of carbon." Someone needs to impose a political cost on Mr. Obama's arbitrary rule by regulation.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

DETROIT (Reuters) - A 'green' showroom, free charging stations and several acres of solar panels are all part of the pitch by Galpin Ford dealership to environmentally minded car buyers in southern California.

So how many plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles has the Los Angeles dealership actually sold?

"Very, very few," said Beau Boeckmann, whose family owns Galpin Ford, the automaker's largest U.S. dealership. Only 2 percent of the vehicles Galpin sold last month were plug-ins.

Dealers and analysts don't envision a huge leap in sales of plug-ins any time soon despite still-high gasoline prices, a raft of price cuts and cheap lease deals on EVs. Other enticements include a steady stream of new green-car entries and hefty federal and state incentives.

"Between now and 2020, I don't see (EVs) getting too far beyond a couple of percentage points" of market share, said Matthew Stover, an industry analyst with Guggenheim Capital Markets.

Obstacles to EV sales include getting shoppers just to try an electric or hybrid car, easing their qualms about such things as having enough charging stations and, for the salesman, the extra time and effort it takes to close a deal.

HybridCars.com, which tracks sales, says demand for plug-in vehicles is beginning to pick up. But total plug-in volume remains relatively modest - only 32,705 sales through May, representing a modest 0.5 percent of total industry sales.

CADILLAC AND BMW EVS

With even more new EVs and hybrids on the way later this year, including the BMW i3 and the Cadillac ELR, manufacturers are stepping up discounts on their green cars.

General Motors Co (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) is the latest company to offer aggressive pricing. GM on Monday announced incentives of up to $5,000 on the Chevrolet Volt, whose U.S. sales through May were relatively flat at 7,157. GM in late May also launched the new Chevrolet Spark EV with a lower-than-expected starting price of $27,495 and is offering discounted lease rates on both the Volt and the Spark EV. [ID:nL2N0E31RA]

A similar strategy is being pursued by other plug-in manufacturers, notably Nissan Motor Co (7201.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). A price cut in January of more than $6,000 boosted sales of its Leaf EV to 7,614 through May.

Somewhat unexpectedly, both the Leaf and the Volt have been outsold this year by the Tesla Model S, a battery-powered luxury sedan that is more than twice the price of the Leaf and nearly double that of the Volt. Sales of the Model S through May were 8,850, making it the best-selling plug-in car in the United States despite a starting price of $70,890.

Tesla has been more successful than older, more established automakers in selling EVs, in part, because it appeals to a niche group of tech-savvy, status-conscious buyers, said Stover.

"This is the same set that will buy a Ferrari," he said.

Tesla also has been able to alleviate such buyer concerns about EVs as short driving range, long charging times and lack of charging stations.

Car dealers for other brands that sell plug-in vehicles face a "chicken and egg" scenario, said Detroit-area auto analyst Alan Baum. Consumers eventually will become more comfortable with the inherent limitations of many EVs once they spend more time in the vehicles, but dealers are still struggling to get drivers into the cars, he said.

Retail salespeople also are reluctant to spend the extra time it takes to educate buyers about the benefits of electric cars and how they differ from conventional models.

"Dealers are going to take the path of least resistance to sell," Baum said.

It is "more intensive" to sell EVs, said Edward Tonkin, vice president of 16 Tonkin dealerships in Oregon, even though buyers in the Portland area tend to be more tuned in to environmental issues.

But because these people have the backing of powerful special interests, they've been able to control much of the conversation in Washington and halt progress on these critical issues. And while I hate to say it, if we don't act quickly to support the President, they might win again.

Will you stand up to climate-change deniers and stand with President Obama?

Under the President's plan, we have a real chance to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create a more sustainable future for our children, and our children's children. But it won't happen if we don't act.

I can guarantee you that this will be a big fight -- many Republicans will deny science and claim that "those liberals" are making it up. But you, me, and 97 percent of scientists know better [we meant only 5%]-- climate change is real and we have to act now before it's too late.

As the President said, "we don't have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society." Stand up and fight today:

So who is really the president of the "Flat Earth Society" on this issue? It is not the so-called "skeptics" who rely on scientific data to inform their position. The Flat Earthers are people such as Obama, who ignore that solid evidence and simply declare their religious belief that human activity is catastrophically changing the Earth's climate.

Scientists since the time of Pythagoras in the 6th Century B.C. knew the Earth was round. What's Obama's excuse?

I think that many climate alarmists must know that phrases such as "remarkable coincidences" or "dramatic changes" are lies. But they have almost no problem to emit these lies because these words are "qualitative" and not "quantitative" so it's not really possible to rigorously prove that they're lies.

In 1988 James Hansen turned off the air conditioning and opened the windows in congress on a hot day in D.C. to make his point. Obama held his press conference outside in the direct sunlight on a 93º degree day, and the first thing Obama does is comment on how hot it is and takes off his suit coat. Then during the rest of his speech he kept wiping sweat off his face. I think this was supposed to be some sort of an attempt at subliminal messaging I think it just came off as sophomoric, he seemed to be making light of a very important issue.

So who is really the president of the “Flat Earth Society” on this issue? It is not the so-called “skeptics” who rely on scientific data to inform their position. The Flat Earthers are people such as Obama, who ignore that solid evidence and simply declare their religious belief that human activity is catastrophically changing the Earth’s climate.

As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.

“I accept that climate change is a process which has been ongoing since beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in world-wide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age,” he said. “If it’s a coincidence, it’s quite a remarkable one. We may have experienced a temperature increase even without our use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, but I doubt it would be as dramatic as what we’re seeing now.”

Says the guy who believes in global warming despite the fact there has been zero increase in global temps over the last decade and a half even with an increase in CO2 emissions that exceeded expectations.

"From 2000-2010, Alaska actually cooled off by an average of 2.4 degrees, with 19 of 20 official weather stations reporting declines in that decade," Anderson writes. "In 2012, the state overall was 2.9 degrees cooler than normal."

"The jet stream usually rushes rapidly from west to east in a mostly straight direction. But lately it's been wobbling and weaving like a drunken driver, wreaking havoc as it goes," Borenstein writes.

That would explain why McGrath, Alaska, shivered through highs of 15 F last week before racing to 94 this week, or about 20 degrees above normal.

So there's no climate change then? It's not that easy, unfortunately, for those of you looking to prove or disprove those predictions of doom and gloom.

"It's been just a crazy fall and winter and spring all along, following a very abnormal sea ice condition in the Arctic," Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis told the AP [Arctic sea ice is actually near the 1979-2008 mean]. "It's possible what we're seeing in this unusual weather is all connected."

The Obama administration is stepping up its game in dealing with climate change. In his June 19 speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, President Barack Obama said that “the effort to slow climate change requires bold action.” On Tuesday, in a speech at Georgetown University, Obama called for the United States to “lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.” And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will issue regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

Such moves echo widespread public concern about global warming outside the United States, according to a recent poll of 39 countries by the Pew Research Center. But they do not reflect the priorities of the American people, who are, on a per capita basis, among the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Nor do they reflect the concerns of the Chinese, whose country is the world’s most significant source of carbon dioxide, methane and other emissions.

Publics all around the world are particularly worried about climate change, with a median of 54 percent of those surveyed citing this as a major threat to their countries. Other prominent concerns include fears about international financial instability (52 percent) and Islamic extremist groups (49 percent). As might be expected, these apprehensions differ by region and by country. But at a time of turmoil in the Middle East and a slow recovery from the Great Recession in many parts of the world – both immediate challenges – general public anxiety about climate change, a long-term concern, is strong.

Climate worries are particularly prevalent in Latin America, where two-thirds are concerned, as well as the Asia/Pacific (56 percent), Europe (54 percent) and sub-Saharan Africa (54 percent). Indeed, global warming is among the most important threat cited by publics in the seven countries surveyed in Latin America, in five of the eight nations in the Asia/Pacific and three of the six publics surveyed in Africa. Greeks were most concerned, with 87 percent listing the issue as a worry, followed by 85 percent of South Koreans and three quarters of Brazilians.

In contrast, Americans and Chinese are among the least apprehensive about climate change. Just 40 percent of Americans say global warming poses a major threat to the United States, a virtually identical number to those saying so in China.

Of course, climate change is not the global public’s only worry. The survey also found that at least half of those polled in eight European nations, as well as in many Middle Eastern and African countries, consider international financial instability a major threat. This is especially the case in those nations hard hit by the euro crisis. In the southern European nations of Greece (95 percent), Italy (75 percent) and Spain (70 percent) clear majorities of the public expressed concern that financial turmoil could harm their societies.

In addition, majorities in the United States, as well as in many European and African countries, consider Islamic extremist groups a major threat, with concern in Europe being especially acute in France, Spain, Germany and Britain. Americans and Europeans, meanwhile, also express concern about Iran’s nuclear program, while North Korea’s nuclear ambitions also trouble Americans, with 59 percent saying this poses a major threat to the United States.

It’s true that the Obama administration’s new initiatives on climate change respond to a groundswell of public concern around the world about the future effects of global warming.

“When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first question I got wasn’t about the challenges that part of the world faces,” Obama said Tuesday. “It was about the climate challenge that we all face – and America’s role in addressing it.”

But the reality is that the president’s recent announcements do not reflect the concerns of either the American or the Chinese people, the two most significant emitters of greenhouse gases. If global warming is to be slowed, it is those publics that need to see climate change as a major threat to their societies. Today, they do not
.

By circumventing Congress and unleashing the vast powers of the administrative regulatory state in the name of combating “climate change,” President Obama has – yet again – revealed his determination to subject the American people to the unchecked whims of the federal bureaucracy.

Obama’s “Climate Action Plan” has nothing to do with the climate. Instead, the climate, in all of its complexity, serves as a convenient pretext for the administration — working hand in glove with environmental groups and non-competitive, rent-seeking industries — to seize regulatory control of the production and use of energy so as to further concentrate power in Washington. Obama’s weapons of choice are executive orders and the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), both of which do not require the approval of elected officials in Congress nor those at the state and local level.

Addressing a crowd gathered at Washington’s elite Georgetown University (where the annual cost of tuition is north of $44,000 a year), Obama outlined his scheme to rid the world of “carbon pollution.” Among other things, it calls for a 17 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S. by 2020, more stringent efficiency standards for home appliances, tougher fuel mileage requirements for heavy-duty trucks, and more subsidies for already heavily subsidized and environmentally destructive (massive bird and bat kills) wind farms.

War on Coal

But it is the administration’s plans for power plants that will have the most far-reaching effect on consumers and businesses. In 2012, the Obama EPA issued its “new source performance standard” that effectively made it impossible to build new coal-fired power plants, because no technology exists that would enable utilities to meet the new standards. At the time, the head of EPA’s air office, Gina McCarthy, assured the public that existing plants would not have to meet the new standard and that EPA was not promoting fuel-switching. Less than a year after McCarthy’s solemn promise, however, the following sentence appears on page 19 of Obama’s Climate Action Plan: “Going forward, we will promote fuel-switching from coal to gas for electricity production and encourage the development for a global market for gas.”

The cat was let out of the bag when one of Obama’s science advisors, Daniel Shrag of Harvard, told the New York Times (June 25) that, “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they are having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what is needed.” Coal, of which the United States has by far the largest reserves in the world, still account for 37 percent of the nation’s electricity. The administration’s war on coal amounts to nothing less than industrial sabotage by regulatory means. By eliminating affordable, abundant coal from the nation’s energy mix, the administration is deliberately taking a step that will lead to loss of good-paying jobs in the nation’s leading coal-producing states of Wyoming, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Virginia, Utah, Montana, and North Dakota. No longer able to draw on rich coal reserves, utilities will have little choice but to charge more for the electricity they sell to their customers. Electricity rates will go up, hitting seniors and others living on lower incomes the hardest.

While natural gas extracted from America’s vast shale formations will be able to fill some of the gap, the elimination of coal as a power source will put huge strains on the already weak economy and on household budgets. And what is to keep the war on coal from morphing into a war on gas? While most Americans welcome the jobs and lower power rates the Shale Revolution has made possible, the Obama administration and its allies in the environmental movement remain firm in their hostility to fossil fuels. After coal has been regulated out of existence, green elites will not hesitate to go after natural gas and oil. EPA bureaucrats and Obama administration political appointees are already devising schemes to bring about federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking.

The Shale Revolution, and all the potential it holds for enabling American energy independence within a few decades, has unfolded without Washington’s heavy hand. To green elites inside and outside the administration, this is precisely the problem. They will not stand idly by and watch fossil fuels, in this case natural gas and shale oil, provide Americans with affordable energy.

Overseeing the implementation of Obama’s Climate Action Plan will be his designated EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. A fixture in EPA’s bureaucracy for many years, McCarthy is highly skilled at drafting regulations that bypass Congress and impose extraordinary burdens on the lives of ordinary people. How many senators will have the courage and the conviction to stand up for their constituencies in West Virginia, Ohio, North Dakota, Tennessee and elsewhere and vote to reject her nomination?

- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/26/obamas-climate-initiative-a-green-elitist-assault-on-ordinary-citizens/#sthash.rStRovxL.dpuf

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds climate models predict a decrease in tropical cyclones due to alleged warming from CO2, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists. According to the paper, "Tropical cyclones are shown to decrease in frequency globally by 9% in the [doubled CO2 simulation] and 26% in the [quadrupled CO2 simulation]." The paper corroborates many other peer-reviewed papers projecting a decrease of the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones and hurricanes in the future. Multiple observational studies also find that tropical cyclones decrease with warming.

Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

JaneStrachan and Pier LuigiVidale

National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

KevinHodges

NERC Centre for Earth Observation, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

MalcolmRoberts

Met Office, Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom

Abstract

We present an assessment of how tropical cyclone activity might change due to the influence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, using the UK’s High Resolution Global Environment Model (HiGEM) with N144 resolution (~90 km in the atmosphere and ~40 km in the ocean). Tropical cyclones are identified using a feature tracking algorithm applied to model output. Tropical cyclones from idealized 30-year 2×CO2 (2CO2) and 4×CO2 (4CO2) simulations are compared to those identified in a 150-year present-day simulation, which is separated into a 5-member ensemble of 30-year integrations. Tropical cyclones are shown to decrease in frequency globally by 9% in the 2CO2 and 26% in the 4CO2. Tropical cyclones only become more intese in the 4CO2, however uncoupled time slice experiments reveal an increase in intensity in the 2CO2. An investigation into the large-scale environmental conditions, known to influence tropical cyclone activity in the main development regions, is used to determine the response of tropical cyclone activity to increased atmospheric CO2. A weaker Walker circulation and a reduction in zonally averaged regions of updrafts lead to a shift in the location of tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere. A decrease in mean ascent at 500 hPa contributes to the reduction of tropical cyclones in the 2CO2 in most basins. The larger reduction of tropical cyclones in the 4CO2 arises from further reduction of mean ascent at 500 hPa and a large enhancement of vertical wind shear, especially in the southern hemisphere, North Atlantic and North East Pacific.

Obama's war on coal will only serve to increase exports of US coal to plants in India and China that have inferior emissions control. The net result will be an increase of global emissions, bankruptcy of US electricity plants, increased energy costs & job losses, with no benefit to the climate.

WSJ.COM 6/27/13: The beleaguered domestic coal industry, bracing for the possibility that no more coal-burning power plants will ever be built on U.S. soil, is teaming up with other business groups to blunt the impact of President Obama's climate-change agenda, while also shifting its business focus to exports.

Following the president's announcement Tuesday of a sweeping plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, including at existing coal-fired power plants, some company officials said Wednesday there is also greater urgency to develop clean-coal technology, including a cost-effective way to capture and store carbon dioxide.

The coal industry plans to coordinate lobbying efforts with manufacturers and other business groups to fight rules they argue will raise electricity costs. Several groups plan to reach out to members of Congress from states that rely heavily on coal generation. "It'll be interesting, for sure, and loud," Kevin Crutchfield, chief executive of Bristol, Va., coal producer Alpha Natural Resources Inc., said in an interview. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to develop the regulations over the next year.

While final climate-plan details are unknown, one thing is clear: The domestic market for coal that is used to produce electricity will shrink as a result of the new rules and other market forces, most notably a surge in U.S. production of low-priced and cleaner-burning natural gas.

"The U.S. market for coal is going to be smaller going forward. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out," said Mr. Crutchfield. "The question is, 'How much smaller could it get?' "

Mr. Crutchfield said Alpha and other coal producers will pursue more exports of coal to China, India and Europe, including both thermal coal used to generate electricity and higher-grade metallurgical coal used to make steel. "You'll see more of a pivot on everybody's part," he said.

President Obama, as part of his plan to combat climate change, called for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, to be partly achieved by cutting carbon emissions from power plants. The rules could require utilities to add new equipment to lower emissions and make less-efficient plants unprofitable to operate, experts say. Increasing costs to burn coal would prompt utilities to use more existing capacity for natural gas and other fuels and to build new plants to increase that type of power generation.

Energy analysts say the new rules, combined with environmental standards now being implemented, could push about one-third of the U.S. coal-fired fleet into retirement.

The administration's plan to reduce carbon emissions didn't surprise anyone in the coal industry. EPA rules to lower other pollutants have already led to the retirement of coal-fired power plants and lower coal demand, prompting greater focus on exports.

Last year, U.S. utilities burned 825 million tons of coal, down from 1.045 billion tons in 2007. Meanwhile, coal companies exported 126 million tons last year, up from 59 million tons in 2007.

At the same time, China's coal consumption soared to 4.33 billion tons last year, up from 2.97 billion tons in 2007. Global demand for coal is currently about eight billion tons a year. Officials in India, which uses coal to produce more than half its electricity, recently said they intend to boost coal imports to avoid power outages that have hit the country.

"The world will continue to consume fossil fuels at an increasing rate in the coming decades regardless of potential unilateral action by the United States," Brett Harvey, chief executive of Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy Inc., which produces both coal and natural gas, said in an emailed statement. He said he doesn't think Mr. Obama's climate proposal aligns with "energy realities."

Consol, however, stands to benefit from regulations favoring natural gas, which produces about half the carbon emissions as coal. Consol currently gets about 14% of its revenue from natural-gas production. "We'll be able to supply our customers with natural gas if that's the route [the administration] chooses to go," said Steve Winberg, Consol's vice president of research and development.

Gregory Boyce, chief executive of St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp., noted on Wednesday that global consumption of coal is expected to grow by about 1.4 billion metric tons over the next five years. [17.5% increase]

In the U.S., experts say it would take decades to develop enough capacity from other fuel sources to supplant coal. Last year, cheap natural gas pushed electricity generation from coal down to 37%, but coal has rebounded to about 40% this year as natural-gas prices have increased.

Coal companies are expected to continue shutting higher-cost mines, bringing more economic pain to states like West Virginia and Kentucky. In the first quarter of this year there were 900 active coal mines, down 17% from a year earlier. The top 100 producing mines account for 80% of the U.S. coal supply."There's going to be further attrition," said Paul Forward, an analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.

At the same time, he said, utilities that have invested billions of dollars already in emissions controls will want to continue burning coal, a reliably cheap fuel source when compared to historically more volatile natural gas, for decades. "For a very long time there's going to be room in the energy mix for low cost sources of coal," he said.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

False Witness: President Obama is being lauded for his plans to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. But the scheme looks more like the last refuge of a desperate movement, because the speech he gave in its defense was full of lies.

Al Gore called Obama's Tuesday presentation at Georgetown University a "terrific and historic speech." It was not an honest message, though.

His text was laden with myths, fables, distortions and outright lies. Here are the top five:

1. "The planet is warming."

Earth's post-1950 warming trend stopped at least 16 years ago. This is an admission made by Britain's Met Office last fall. The media have confirmed the lack of warming, including the New York Times, which says the warming stopped 15 years ago rather than 16.

2. "Human activity is contributing to it."

There is no way that Obama or anyone else can say with any degree of certainty that human activity is contributing to climate change. Weather and climate are complex, are controlled by a multitude of variables, and are only dimly understood.

Scientists are free to claim that man is causing the planet to warm. And of course they do. But if they say it's an indisputable fact, that there is no room for the possibility that humans aren't responsible for post-Little Ice Age warming, then they are being dishonest.

3. "The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that (doubt) to rest."

There is dissent in the scientific community, and it's not insignificant.

Consider a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists, conducted by academics and its findings peer reviewed. The researchers discovered that 24% of the respondents "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the earth" while another 10% consider the "'real' cause of climate change" to be "unknown" and acknowledge that "nature is forever changing and uncontrollable."

Two of the study's academics reported that "skepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains" among climate scientists.

4. "Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that (doubt) to rest."

This claim is from something called the "Doran Survey," which supposedly found that 75 of 77 climatologists agree that man is causing global warming. But 77 isn't an adequate sample size from which to draw such a conclusion and this group of scientists holds "unknown qualifications," says Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environment writer. It's a dubious finding.

5. "Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief."

If Americans are paying steeper insurance premiums, it's not due to man-made climate change. It's because insurers have bought into the myth. Or found a way to charge more. Or both.

If Americans are paying higher taxes, it's not due to inaction. It's because greedy elected officials have found another pretext for hiking taxes.

Obama's third point is particularly specious. There has been no damage or disaster wrought by global warming. It has not caused storms to increase either in intensity or frequency.

Kerry Emanuel, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and leading hurricane researcher, once believed as Obama does — that man-made global warming will bring stronger and more frequent storms.

But he reconsidered and in 2008 told the New York Times, "The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us."

Even Gore has had to admit that scientists "won't let us yet" link tornadoes to global warming.

An argument that can't stand on its own has to resort to deceit and exaggeration to perpetuate its existence. Such spectacles will only grow worse as the phony debate's last days approach. This is how we know that the great global warming scare is nearing its end.